UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6591

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEFFREY MOZINGO,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.
Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge.
(5:05-cr-00064-FPS-JES-4; 5:07-cv00158-FPS-JES)

Submitted:

July 23, 2009

Decided:

July 30, 2009

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Mozingo, Appellant Pro Se.

Randolph John Bernard,
Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Mozingo seeks to appeal the district courts
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying

relief

motion.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge

issues

on

his

absent

constitutional
prisoner
reasonable

substantial

right.

jurists

of

2255

(West

Supp.

appealability.

28

2009)

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

satisfies

constitutional

U.S.C.A.

certificate

2253(c)(1) (2006).
issue

28

28

this
would

claims

by

showing
U.S.C.

the

the

denial

2253(c)(2)

standard
find

of

by

that

any

district

of

(2006).

demonstrating
assessment

court

is

a
A

that

of

debatable

the
or

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable.

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);
Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mozingo has

not

made

the

requisite

showing.

Accordingly,

we

deny

certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis,

deny

Mozingos

motion

expense, and dismiss the appeal.

for

transcript

at

government

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
2